We don't have vast stocks of Pfizer, but the main reason is a shortage of people coming forward for vaccination. We've essentially got the low hanging fruit - those prepared to go out of their way to get an early jab, but even now we get the occasional 60 year old coming forward for their first vaccine. The other factor is that we are being firmer about the 8 week interval, so we had a rush of people through who perhaps got it prematurely, which in turn dips the number of people we can vaccinate today. Having said that, in England we still have only vaccinated 57% of those 18-24 years olds. That is going up by up to 1% point a day, but for those between 18 and 40 we still need to apply pressure on them to come for their vaccines. The travel announcement may begin to concentrate minds on this.

True, but in the few weeks of delay gained this way, you would get more people vaccinated and, in doing so, lower both the speed of the spread and its consequences on the health of the people affected.

Given that full vaccination is starting to mean something (Travel quarantine inbound, travel restrictions outbound, self isolation for contacts from next month) and there is a shortage of willing new participants, it seems a little cruel to be denying people second doses below eight weeks? (And I ask this as a question about the program; I know its not your personal decision!).

I can't see how any of what you suggest is going to make any difference. It sounds like what you wish happened, but not what can be done practically.

1. CO2 measurements can be provided and HEPA filters installed, then what? Besides, so much transmission occurs in private dwellings that I can't see how this can make much of a difference.
2. Keep the mask mandate: seriously? People are ignoring it more and more. What is the solution to that? You can increase fines as they already have been since July 2020, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference.
3. We've already spent tens of billions of taxpayers' money for an "efficient" Test and Trace system. It hasn't worked. Nor does it seem to have worked in other European countries (everyone was hailing Germany as the European Test and Trace champion last year, until it went into a six-month-long lockdown!). What makes you think it'll be different this time round?
4. I agree on isolating positive tests, which is realistically the only thing which is feasible. Will the government give paid sick leave?
5. We've vaccinated almost all those who are eligible. We have reached 9/10 of eligible people, and soon most people will have completed their vaccination cycle. We are in fact running out of arms to vaccinate. We've jabbed as many arms as possible.
6. Educate, yes, but don't chastise people for being people, as Maria Van Kerkhove did last night when she complained about crowds and singing during the Euro final. Public Health experts need to reconsider about the way they convey their messages to ordinary people. They need to empathize if they want to be taken seriously, but they clearly don't seem smart enough to do it after having had 18 months to do it, but failing repeatedly.

Quite a timely mention of this point earlier today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5...ost_type=share

The advice of the JCVI is 8 weeks is a minimum really, and less than that may lead to lower overall protection. Personally I have kept to my originally booked 11 week interval.

Thanks. I think the view has shifted a bit on this and now maybe is shifting back. The science behind strong protection with further spaced doses is clear. Given the much lower protection for Delta for only one dose, it does seem to be a bit of a balancing line that no one probably has the data to come up with the perfect answer for.

BUT when double dosing is a key to certain freedoms and there aren't a queue of people waiting for a first dose AND doses at 3-4 weeks is what most of the world is doing (and the manufacturers trialed) - it seems a bridge too far in my opinion to hold people back. I realize that there are still places where you can get it earlier but seems to be fewer and further between.

1. In Spain there is a limit at 1000 PPM CO2 in public space, same in Belgium with obligation to display the measures to the public. We know COVID is airborne so aeration, filter and air recycling are effective countermeasures. If this was done seriously there would be an impact on transmission. For private dwelling, this is the Educate point: explain mode of transmission and the predominance of airborne transmission. And emphasise on air recycling via opening windows and doors regularly at home and working environment.
2. yes, seriously. This is a simple and effective measure, that coupled with the right tools can help a lot .
3. It was highly inefficient and expensive. Note i talk about backward tracing, we are doing forward, which is useless. 10% of the infected contaminate 90% of the new infections. Focus on backward tracing to find clusters and cut them.​​​​​​
4. It should pay sick leave.
5. As CWS says above, there are plenty of people to vaccinate still.

Again: Has any of this made much of a difference anywhere in Europe? If people don't wear masks (and let's be serious here: People are wearing masks less and less), what are you going to do? Use force to put a mask on their face? And yes, there may be many people to vaccinate still, but if they can't/won't get vaccinated, what are you going to do? Find them and inject them by force? We will never get 100% vaccination rate (and we are now at 87%+ of those eligible!), even if it is made mandatory.

One thing is what we could do, but quite another is what we can do. Wishful thinking doesn't work in practice. The only thing which has a chance is paying sick leave, but I don't have much hope in this government.

It has not made a good impact in Europe because it is not consistently done in Europe, some countries do some of those measures (Germany does well on the aeration front, Spain too) but not all. Elsewhere those measures are applied successfully: South Korea, Taiwan, Japan for example.

If something works in South Korea, good for the South Koreans, but its usefulness in Europe is zilch if (for whatever reason) it doesn't work in Europe, just saying...

This article has some diagrams explaining how ventilation, masks and distancing cut infections (all together, not just one):

https://english.elpais.com/society/2...h-the-air.html

This is one of the (few) occasions when the UK seems to be getting it right: there is growing evidence to indicate that 8 weeks between doses offers better, longer-lasting protection than 3-4 weeks, and it would be short-sighted to offer a second jab after 4 weeks just so that someone can go to Lanzarote.

Academically, you are 100% right (as far as I know from the press and CWS; I have no independent knowledge on the subject). But shouldn't the person get to make that decision? Not the government?

That's completely incorrect. Not a single person can say anything about longevity/longer-lasting protection yet. The first trials where only 30-40 people got the vaccine was around 10-12 months ago from now. Most scientists are saying longevity for the vaccine can possibly be between 12 months to many years. So considering mass vaccinations only began in Dec/Jan, there is no way to determine real longevity for a while yet. And ultimately, we will then see if the 3-4 week gap was better for real long-term longevity, or the 8+ week gap.

Daughter was denied a second Pfizer jab at 4 weeks today at her local walkin. The ONLY reason we are seeking this is she returns to the US next week. I have zero issues getting her the second jab in California at 8 weeks. But everything I am reading is that if she gets second jab in UK before she leaves she can return to uni in September without a costly and burdensome 10 day home quarantine. She has done everything 100 percent by the book to this point and is not seeking a second jab "early" for frivolous reasons.